Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

“Senator Obama’s Violation of the Early State Pledge.” Florida

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:35 PM
Original message
“Senator Obama’s Violation of the Early State Pledge.” Florida
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8019.html

obama ran ads in Florida violating the no campaign pledge and obama supporters are hypocrits and liars for claiming falsely that Clinton did.
t...she went to a NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC fundraiser. She violated no rule, unlike Obama did.


"There is no question that these ads are a clear and blatant violation of the early-state pledge that Sen. Obama and the other leading Democratic candidates signed last year," said the Clinton campaign statement. "The early-state pledge was crystal clear in its prohibition against any kind of campaign activity (outside of fundraising) in states that do not adhere to the DNC calendar. There is no ambiguity. Among the list of prohibited activities are 'electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state.'"




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan didn't violate the pledge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hayu_lol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Nickster, NO, her leaving her name on the ballot in Michigan...
was ok. The candidates were not required to take their names off the ballot. They were not allowed to campaign in Michigan.

It was Obama's and Edward's inexperience and the pandering they were doing for other state primaries that led them to take their names off. To do so was not a requirement.

Dennis of course, broke the rules in Michigan by actively campaigning there. He also, very slyly, managed to botch his paperwork so that his name remained on the ballot.

Hillary is a candidate for the presidency. Why should she have removed her name from the ballot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Of course no one was required to take their names off, but the spirit of that pledge was that they
would not have their names on the ballot. She knew that and made the strategic decision to leave her name on there just in case those delegates get seated in the end. Let's be honest about it.

Why is Kucinich the sly one leaving his name on the ballot, but Sen. Clinton gets a pass?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oh, this is coming from the Clinton Camp. I thought maybe it was from a legitimate source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nailzberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Seriously. The DNC gets to make the call, not Hillary.
If the Rules and Bylaws Committee decides to rebuke Obama for the national ad buy, then that would be the only interpretation that matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catagory5 Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. Clinton likely to get the Nom........
http://nationaljournal.com/cook.htm

Clinton/McCain have edge for nomination


OFF TO THE RACES
Coming Into Focus, Maybe
By Charlie Cook, NationalJournal.com
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2008

Although the presidential nominations certainly aren't settled, there's much more clarity in the contests than existed in the days surrounding the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary.


There's a growing admission among longtime McCain detractors that he may be the only Republican who can beat Clinton or Obama.









That was truly a disorienting time, with too many conflicting signals to even come up with a plausible hypothesis for what was going on.

But today, as Florida votes in its presidential primary, we can make some sense out of things.

Clearly, John McCain's stock is up. In both national and state polling, his support and favorable ratings among Republicans are on the rise.

Mitt Romney might be running roughly even with McCain in Florida, but nationally and in most other states, he is not keeping up with the Arizona senator and does not enjoy the same momentum.

The other surviving GOP contenders, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, are trying desperately to hang on for dear life.

To be sure, there's considerable resistance to McCain among many staunch conservatives who have long doubted he is truly one of them. And some members of the party establishment have been irritated by his frequent exploits as a "maverick."

But the alternatives are looking less and less attractive every day, and there seems to be a growing, albeit begrudging, admission among longtime McCain detractors that he may be the only Republican who can beat Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama.

Romney still has his considerable personal financial fortune to draw on, and the Florida primary is certainly neck-and-neck. The question remains, however, whether Romney could continue spending through the Feb. 5 array of primaries at the high levels necessary for him to capitalize on a Florida win.

Clearly the Romney strategy is to stay alive long enough to get down to a two-way contest with McCain. From there, he can capitalize on the Arizonan's many enemies within the party, or hope that there's a ceiling on McCain's support and force a mistake.

If that happens, the former Massachusetts governor will have the opportunity to pounce. But McCain has made very few mistakes during this campaign, and even many of his critics are starting to come around.

Romney has badly damaged his own personal franchise, and his perceived strengths have faded. At one time, he projected the image of the competent manager -- someone who was sharp, analytical and perhaps the perfect fit to fix an ailing economy. But he's increasingly viewed as a world-class panderer, and his stock has fallen.

Instead of branding himself as the earnest problem-solver, he has attempted to promote the idea that he is the most conservative candidate in the race, which was neither credible nor particularly convincing. If any candidate this year has soiled his own nest and diminished his own substantial potential, it is Romney.

The Romney of a year ago might well have won the nomination; the current one will have a very difficult time doing so.

On the Democratic side, it is coming down to arithmetic; Obama has to change the math if he is going to win his party's presidential nomination.

Since his impressive victory in the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, exit polls show he has not been able to run up big numbers among white voters. Obama garnered about a third of the white vote in New Hampshire and Nevada and about a quarter in South Carolina.

Obama has done well among black voters, winning by overwhelming margins in Nevada and South Carolina. But that won't be enough to offset his deficit among whites. There are also signs that Obama's strong support among blacks might be at least partially offset by fairly substantial support for Clinton among Hispanics.

In Nevada, for example, despite the fact that the heavily Hispanic Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama, Clinton beat Obama among Hispanics by better than 2-to-1.

There are some indications that a battle might be brewing between blacks and Hispanics over who will be the dominant minority group within the Democratic Party. While Obama generally does better among blacks than Clinton does among Hispanics, it does reduce his support and makes getting a bigger share of the white vote that much more important.

The key now is how much longer John Edwards will stay in the race. Perhaps more importantly, when does he run out of money and go into a more inactive candidate status? And if and when that happens, where will his support go?

Early on, it might have been assumed that Clinton was the pivot point in this contest. You were either for her or not, and if not, you then chose an alternative. But Obama has become just as strong a personality as Clinton, which can have its downsides.

So it is no longer a given that a white Democrat who decides to abandon Edwards would automatically end up in Obama's column. That's just another wild card in this tough race.


-- Charlie Cook is a NationalJournal.com contributing editor, weekly columnist for National Journal magazine and the founder and publisher of the Cook Political Report. This column also runs in CongressDailyAM when Congress is in session. His e-mail address is cookreport@nationaljournal.com.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avrdream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Interesting analysis by Charlie Cook.
Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. Misleading. You left this part out:
Bill Burton, the Obama for America press secretary, called the attack “misguided.”

“Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida,” Burton said.

“For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of {the} pledge made to the early states.”


The issue marked an escalation in the increasingly fierce and public wrangling between the campaigns.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said on a later conference call that the Clinton campaign “has been looking” for an excuse to “evade” the pledge.”

“This has kind of been a pattern,” Plouffe said. “They’ve been willing to play outside the lines.”

Plouffe also said: “We inquired about the ability, given our pledge in Florida, to not run spots down there. Both cable systems said that wasn’t possible.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. ... because that's the part that negates the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. wow....
thanks. I think what happened in Vegas..isn't going to stay in Vegas.
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2008/01/16/OppoDemsMTNRelief.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Obama did not run Florida ads
He did run national ads. Please don't argue that they are the same, please maintain a minimal amount of self respect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
8. Obama also gave a press conference in FL, violating the pledge
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
10. do you really expect people not to read the whole article?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC